5 ms·

Well, if you want any further insight into the CEO, check out Toptal's investment page: https://www.toptal.com/investors https://www.toptal.com/investors. He m

by lbatx 7y ago

Well, if you want any further insight into the CEO, check out Toptal's investment page: https://www.toptal.com/investors https://www.toptal.com/investors. He minces no words and comes off quite aggressively. Very much a "my way or the highway" tone to that page. They seem sort of like StackOverflow or Basecamp from a bootstrap perspective, without the warm fuzzy feeling you get from interacting with either of those companies.

spitfire 7y ago
The guy may be a class A Ahole, but I really like that message. Like, really like it. He's essentially saying "yes, I know the shenanigans you play, and I'm not going there." Though, I doubt it's a business that will "scale to tens of thousands of employees around the world". That seems like a reach.
- jiveturkey 7y ago
  The content is fine. It's obviously spurred by experience or by an influx of offers. The presentation is shite. Just have an autoresponder. It reeks of Netflix' culture deck.
  - chao- 7y ago
    The term "reek" is normally negative in connotation. I have seen (at least on HN) the famous Netflix culture documents praised as straightforward method to assist in defining culture. Not that it "solves" culture in some magical, systemic way (i.e. naive founders saying "Look we have a culture deck, culture done!"), but still have only heard it referenced as a useful communication tool. So having never seen it spoken of poorly, I am interested in your perspective.
    - jiveturkey 7y ago
      Yes, I did mean to invoke the negative connotation of "reek". The netflix culture deck isn't a bad ideal, not at all. It may not suit some, but that's ok. I think it has some real problems but I won't go into that here. Anyway, let's not let perfect get in the way of good. If it were the reality, it would be better than the way most companies operate, by a long shot. But just like with Valve, the theory is different than the practice. So just as we (HN) hate the person with the fancy car, fancy watch, designer clothes, who are "obviously" just doing this to signal virtue, I loathe the type of org that engineers by blog and cultures by pushy slide deck. It's fine to desire that culture (even if it's impossible), but you look like a buffoon by insisting on being so pushy about it. And that's what Toptal is doing. I am not a netflix employee, but I know a few former and one current employee.
- user5994461 7y ago
  It's a recruiting agency. It's not scalable by design.
skim_milk 7y ago
I worked at a startup company for a year in the Midwest that was in the exact same situation, growing 50% YOY with only a little pocket change for speed funding all owner by the founders. The founders had the same exact idea, founders own 100%, employees own nothing, and they wanted to tell everyone how awesome they were because of it. Key difference was that apparently our city's chamber of commerce that had a lot of skin in the game trying to brand themselves and did some PR work for the founders before they ran their mouth on how wonderful their company was. The message was, after a few edits: You were going to be paid well but we will never put you into the golden handcuffs our friends on the coast love. (Google "We don't coast" for context) He sounds like an asshole but really being able to work for a privately owned fast growing company without shitty options being paid well is pretty great in the tech world.
- lbatx 7y ago
  >He sounds like an asshole but really being able to work for a privately owned fast growing company without shitty options being paid well is pretty great in the tech world. But not as great as working for a privately owned fast growing company with good options and being paid well, no? (And if not options, strictly speaking, how about profit sharing?) Source: I run a bootstrapped software development company and everyone has profit sharing.
  - mygo 7y ago
    Is being paid well not good enough? Companies tend to give out stock as part of a package in lieu of all cash. If you have all you want in cold hard cash, what’s the problem?
    - lbatx 7y ago
      >Is being paid well not good enough? I would say no. Since the employees are one of the keys to the success of the company, why should they not share in the additional profits above and beyond what is planned for the year? >Companies tend to give out stock as part of a package in lieu of all cash. Some do. In my experience, it's been about 50/50. Startups obviously tend to lean more toward equity and lower cash, while larger companies pay well and ofter options or RSUs. I pay market and do profit sharing. >If you have all you want in cold hard cash, what’s the problem? I'm not quite sure how to respond to this. If you make a good salary, would you turn down even more money?
spamizbad 7y ago
I don't agree with him, but it's refreshing. I'd take inartful honesty over bullshit artistry any day of the week.
thegranderson 7y ago
This is almost certainly not written the way it is because he is an asshole (though I have no idea, he might be), but rather because investors seeking to make an investment can be a massive waste of time. They'll say they are open to your terms, but then try to negotiate once you're down the path. A self-funding, growing company has no need for investors, and that situation is not where venture capitalists typically find themselves - usually the companies need cash and VCs have power. It is more typical for PE firms, but usually only when founders want to cash out (or at least begin cashing out) - obviously he's not there yet. I've seen other companies who have clearly wasted a bunch of time with investors before and have to be super clear about their situation to prevent more wasted time, e.g.: http://buildinglink.com/marketing/public/investors http://buildinglink.com/marketing/public/investors
andrewstuart 7y ago
It's pretty cool that's there's any company at all able to make such bold assertions.
- lbatx 7y ago
  There are actually plenty, most of them have the same rules, they just don't say it that way. In other words, they are tactful. I'd say any of the bootstrapped software companies hold those philosophies (they don't need the investment, so they can set the terms).

by lbatx 7y ago

spitfire 7y ago

The guy may be a class A Ahole, but I really like that message. Like, really like it. He's essentially saying "yes, I know the shenanigans you play, and I'm not going there." Though, I doubt it's a business that will "scale to tens of thousands of employees around the world". That seems like a reach.

jiveturkey 7y ago
The content is fine. It's obviously spurred by experience or by an influx of offers. The presentation is shite. Just have an autoresponder. It reeks of Netflix' culture deck.
- chao- 7y ago
  The term "reek" is normally negative in connotation. I have seen (at least on HN) the famous Netflix culture documents praised as straightforward method to assist in defining culture. Not that it "solves" culture in some magical, systemic way (i.e. naive founders saying "Look we have a culture deck, culture done!"), but still have only heard it referenced as a useful communication tool. So having never seen it spoken of poorly, I am interested in your perspective.
  - jiveturkey 7y ago
    Yes, I did mean to invoke the negative connotation of "reek". The netflix culture deck isn't a bad ideal, not at all. It may not suit some, but that's ok. I think it has some real problems but I won't go into that here. Anyway, let's not let perfect get in the way of good. If it were the reality, it would be better than the way most companies operate, by a long shot. But just like with Valve, the theory is different than the practice. So just as we (HN) hate the person with the fancy car, fancy watch, designer clothes, who are "obviously" just doing this to signal virtue, I loathe the type of org that engineers by blog and cultures by pushy slide deck. It's fine to desire that culture (even if it's impossible), but you look like a buffoon by insisting on being so pushy about it. And that's what Toptal is doing. I am not a netflix employee, but I know a few former and one current employee.
user5994461 7y ago
It's a recruiting agency. It's not scalable by design.

skim_milk 7y ago

I worked at a startup company for a year in the Midwest that was in the exact same situation, growing 50% YOY with only a little pocket change for speed funding all owner by the founders. The founders had the same exact idea, founders own 100%, employees own nothing, and they wanted to tell everyone how awesome they were because of it. Key difference was that apparently our city's chamber of commerce that had a lot of skin in the game trying to brand themselves and did some PR work for the founders before they ran their mouth on how wonderful their company was. The message was, after a few edits: You were going to be paid well but we will never put you into the golden handcuffs our friends on the coast love. (Google "We don't coast" for context) He sounds like an asshole but really being able to work for a privately owned fast growing company without shitty options being paid well is pretty great in the tech world.

lbatx 7y ago
>He sounds like an asshole but really being able to work for a privately owned fast growing company without shitty options being paid well is pretty great in the tech world. But not as great as working for a privately owned fast growing company with good options and being paid well, no? (And if not options, strictly speaking, how about profit sharing?) Source: I run a bootstrapped software development company and everyone has profit sharing.
- mygo 7y ago
  Is being paid well not good enough? Companies tend to give out stock as part of a package in lieu of all cash. If you have all you want in cold hard cash, what’s the problem?
  - lbatx 7y ago
    >Is being paid well not good enough? I would say no. Since the employees are one of the keys to the success of the company, why should they not share in the additional profits above and beyond what is planned for the year? >Companies tend to give out stock as part of a package in lieu of all cash. Some do. In my experience, it's been about 50/50. Startups obviously tend to lean more toward equity and lower cash, while larger companies pay well and ofter options or RSUs. I pay market and do profit sharing. >If you have all you want in cold hard cash, what’s the problem? I'm not quite sure how to respond to this. If you make a good salary, would you turn down even more money?

spamizbad 7y ago

I don't agree with him, but it's refreshing. I'd take inartful honesty over bullshit artistry any day of the week.

thegranderson 7y ago

This is almost certainly not written the way it is because he is an asshole (though I have no idea, he might be), but rather because investors seeking to make an investment can be a massive waste of time. They'll say they are open to your terms, but then try to negotiate once you're down the path. A self-funding, growing company has no need for investors, and that situation is not where venture capitalists typically find themselves - usually the companies need cash and VCs have power. It is more typical for PE firms, but usually only when founders want to cash out (or at least begin cashing out) - obviously he's not there yet. I've seen other companies who have clearly wasted a bunch of time with investors before and have to be super clear about their situation to prevent more wasted time, e.g.: http://buildinglink.com/marketing/public/investors http://buildinglink.com/marketing/public/investors

andrewstuart 7y ago

It's pretty cool that's there's any company at all able to make such bold assertions.

lbatx 7y ago
There are actually plenty, most of them have the same rules, they just don't say it that way. In other words, they are tactful. I'd say any of the bootstrapped software companies hold those philosophies (they don't need the investment, so they can set the terms).